memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Q-created reality Because of the below statement, I figured I would post this here. I'm not sure I was ever fond of the article either. Especially since no one actually did anything with it, leaving it as it is in its current state rather meaningless. What is not to say that "Q's created realities" were not "real" in the first place? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :*Doesn't Q-created reality fit into this (plot type) group as well? --FuturamaGuy 07:02, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::*In my opinion, no. That page is about "realities" experienced by the crew, while the others are dubious meta-classifications (does every episode containing a first contact have a "first contact plot"?). If you want to discuss the possible deletion of that page, please create another section here. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I think a "List of places created-by / recreated-by / visited-with-the-help-of Q" would be a very valid list article. This article is currently "meaningless" because a list consisting of links with invalid names was removed without being replaced by a list of "correct" links: for example Sherwood Forest, Afterlife (don't we already have a list of various "afterlifes" somewhere?), the planet Q created in Hide and Q, the various representations of the Continuum itself, the Big Bang, the post-atomic horrors courtroom, Starbase Earhart and so on... Instead of simply deleting this article, we should instead discuss a better suiting title and then move. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I support a pagemove -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * I originally created this article when I made an edit to Sheriff of Nottingham when it referred him to as part of a Fantasy Game, when Q said otherwise. I felt 'Q Created reality' was best description. Since Q's can create their own reality at will, I felt it would be an interesting central article for more on the subject. I do not like the direction this article has taken, I the article should be reverted back to http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Q-created_reality&oldid=148718 this version which follows the original intent of the article. If the names are not good enough, they can be changed from that version. Revert, keep --TOSrules 08:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) Defense sail ;Defense sail: Not cited, nor do I recall this term ever being used on DS9 to descibe what it is this article is attempting to descibe. If anything, this should just be incorporated into the design of Deep Space 9. --Alan del Beccio 12:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *As far as I know, they were just called pylons. Delete or move to pylons (if that is the official term). --From Andoria with Love 19:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Nope... Unless it's a really obscure alternate-name kind of reference or something that came from the technical manual. Weyoun 04:58, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Merge or rewrite: I recall that the sails were seen in use during the DS9 pilot, Emissary, and again in further detail "The Way of the Warrior". Though indeed they did not mention them in the episode verbally, there is a website which speculates (probably correctly) that John Eaves created the upgrades to DS9's weaponry that were used in "The Way of the Warrior", but did not design the original weapons used in the series pilot. Although his original designs were not all used, most of them were accepted and some modified to better fit. They had to construct closeups of the pylon/sails to display the new weapons and of all the upgrades, only two emplacements were seen on-screen being used. The page's source is speculative to me and it called the sails in question "weapons sails" as well as "defense sails". However, the article page for Deep Space Nine links to the "defense sail" article. :At this time, the only information I can find on these modifications has been found in FSD: Starship Concept Art: Arming Deep Space Nine. And seeing as the sources aren't very well defined or confirmed, the article here should be rewritten, merged, or just deleted. The link from the DS9 article should be modified as well. generally, I say it needs to be rewritten. Deletion should be a last option. --MKSuleth 02:03, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Simply put, if the term '''defense sail' was not used, then it really isn't the appropriate term to have cited here.'' Additionally, this so-called "defense sail" was also the location of the tractor beam emitter, if I recall correctly, in "Invasive Procedures", and most probably other early episodes. If anything, it should just be incorporated into the Deep Space 9 article and deleted once and for all. --Alan del Beccio 13:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Merged with Deep Space 9, as most of the information on the page was already contained on the DS9 page and deleted. --Alan del Beccio 08:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) Sha Ka Ree Entity ;Sha Ka Ree Entity: This appears to be well documented under God, as are all of the images this entity portrayed (or was intended to portray). --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Redirect(?) -- Cid Highwind 08:25, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) *support redirect -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * The article needs work but I have to say keep, the Sha-Ka-Ree Entity is a character from Star Trek 5. Although I am not sure the name is correct, deleting him because he is also covered under god isn't a good reason. Each character gets his or her own page. --TOSrules 20:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Definitely keep. The article needs a lot of work but this is a specific character/entity and so deserves its own article. There's a lot of info that should be there and isn't including how it contacted Sybok, the fact that it was "imprisoned" there (we don't know by whom), etc. But definitely deserving of its own entry. Logan 5 21:50, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) * -- i believe the point is that he isn't God, therefore the article "god" doesn't describe him well. Is this the best naming convention to move his information to? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC) **Works for me. Also, God seems to hold up ok as it is, the info does not need to be moved. Sha Ka Ree Entity is a whole different topic. Jaf 13:29, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf *** I think that about covers what i was tring to say --TOSrules 22:27, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC) * I've moved it to God of Sha Ka Ree (for now) to reflect the fact that he was referenced in the end credits of the movies as "God", the next logical step would be to add the god "of what?" -- although the planet wasn't technically "Sha Ka Ree", we refer to it as such on this website. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * I think the old name was better, because the ShaKaRee Entity is not the god of ShaKaRee, who is Kuitu. The credits may be have him as God, but the script says he isn't god. --TOSrules 09:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) Stub categories ;Category:Memory Alpha production stubs & Category:Memory Alpha performer stubs : Not discussed, and I strongly believe there was consensus not to create a category tree for stubs. -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Well, it seems one was created by accident (the performer category), but thanks for bringing it to my attention because I think dividing stubs is a great idea. I only oppose the episode template (the argument for which was that it would automatically update an equivalent version of my/our duty roster) because (1) the duty roster's already been created, whereas we'd have to update every episode to apply the template and (2) I don't think the category tree should be as specific as the duty roster is (e.g. sub-divided to the point of invdividual seasons). But the production stub category should stay. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:59, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' both: if there is no current project to improve a category of articles, we don't need to subdivide the stub categories. If the project of Vedek Dukat is turned into an official MA project, then such a category might be appropriate, but in this case his user subpage could also be moved to MA namespace. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) Keep the production one, although I'd prefer a more all-inclusive term like behind-the-scenes if it's going to include performers. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Comment' Sorry if this was unclear, but since there's still the active policy of discussing categories first, I simply see no valid reason to keep any of these. We shouldn't start the practice of creating undiscussed category pages, then try to keep them alive by voting against their deletion. If you think these categories are useful, please bring them up for discussion first. If you think the policy needs to be changed, start a discussion about that. -- Cid Highwind 02:16, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. Interestingly, the actual category stub was created nearly a year ago by Captainmike, but the category was never added, although I'm not sure why. I think Cid is right about agreeing upon categories, although considering the damage has been done and the votes so far were based around the idea itself rather than creation policy, we might as well turn this into a vote about the category. Therefore, I say keep or delete and when you delete the categories. Weyoun 02:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) **Weyoun, the actual stub messages are and always were independent of their categorization. There's no problem with having different stub messages with the same category. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) *I agree with Cid. Also, I've noticed that in the cases of "unagreed upon categories", such admins as Darkhorizon simply deleted them forgoing this process and noted in the log that they were deleted because they should have never been created or that the "category was not agreed upon." --Alan del Beccio 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) *That's true. I think these should have been deleted, but since they weren't we might as well keep the viable one. As for having a category stub without a category... um, what's the point? So the person can read that it's about a performer/production person? Weyoun 08:29, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) **'deleted' -- please see to support stub sorting. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Cardassian philosophy I'm not at all sure there is enough material here to merit its own article. We've recently folded several other similar articles into the main species page (Ferengi among others). I think it works much better in the main page and have already put the content there. Without significant expansion, and I'm not sure how much it would need, I think we can do without this one. Logan 5 21:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge' with Cardassian and delete this. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge'. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) abbrev. ;STVI, STV, STIV * Delete these unused redirects to Star Trek Movies, they don't follow naming conventions -- and there are already redirects formed more correctly as Star Trek IV and Star Trek V. "STV" in particular is confusing -- I've seen "ST:V" used to refer to both Star Trek V and Star Trek: Voyager -- so its probably best if we continue (as we have always done) at least typing out "Star Trek V" or "VOY" as the simplest short redirect names to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Voyager, respectively. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :Delete. Logan 5 01:43, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Eh, sure, go ahead and delete. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) Hebrew language ;Hebrew language: There are no Trek references to this, so it really doesn't belong here. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Neutral' I remeber Dr. Crusher making a refrence to the exodus of the isrealites once. don't remember when though. Hebrew langauge was not mentioned but it was implied. Also the Gene Rodenbary was Jewish. Since Hebrew is the language of the jews it might be relevant. Tobyk777 00:13, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' If the Jewish people were mentioned, then it still doesnt logically follow to write about their language -- just the people (if "culture X" was mentioned, the first logical step is to write an article about "culture X" --not "culture X's language" (especially if the language itself wasn't mentioned at all!) * Delete, that is unless someone can come up with a reference to the Hebrew Language directly, or find dialog in Hebrew. --TOSrules 03:11, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) Racism against Vulcans ;Racism against Vulcans: Not only is it written in the wrong point of view, the topic should really be included in a subsection of the more simply titled racism. --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. I figured as much, but wasn't sure what to do with it. In any case, it gave me some food for thought, as I'd never considered this idea before. Weyoun 08:26, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Merge' Roar 08:49, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * merge or delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Federation fashion trends ;Federation fashion trends * Tagged for deletion on 11/28/05 but did not appear to make it to this page for voting. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) ** since you didn't nominate it Alan, is there a vote implied by your comment here or are you just listing the named file? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Rename. There seems to be merit to this concept of creating a "top page" for clothing on Star Trek. (whether it be an "in-universe" examination of fashions, or a "meta Trek/ real life point of view" eye on the costumes of Star Trek). **I prefer the meta-Trek "costuming department version" -- basically we should create a top page to examine the work of William Ware Theiss, Robert Blackman, Robert Fletcher and more and to list various behind-the scenes costuming info. Would TNG costumes, etc. be appropriate, linked from each TNG style series mainpage, and various articles that refer to it? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk